Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeals and Cross Objections – Appeals and Cross Objections arose from a Common Order enhancing compensation for acquired lands – Reference Court enhanced market value from ₹45,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- per acre for dry land and from ₹65,000/- to ₹1,33,000/- per acre for irrigated dry land (ID land) – Held: Market value determined by the Reference Court is lawful, reasonable, and adequately supported by evidence – No interference warranted in the Reference Court's findings [Paras 1-3, 11, 19, 53, 55].

Mineral Deposits – Kadapa Slabs and Limestone – Claim Rejected – Claimants contended that the acquired lands contained deposits of Kadapa slabs and limestone – Reference Court and High Court rejected the claims due to lack of evidence, as no records, quarrying activities, or official documents substantiated the claim – Claimants failed to mention mineral deposits in their initial claim statements, raising doubts about credibility – Contentions regarding mineral deposits were introduced post-acquisition to inflate compensation – Held: Lands cannot be classified as containing Kadapa slabs and limestone [Paras 20-22, 31-33, 37, 39-40].

Post-Notification Transactions – Non-Consideration – Claimants relied on Ex.A.2 (post-notification sale deed indicating ₹3,00,000/- per acre) to argue for higher compensation – Reference Court rightly ignored Ex.A.2, as the transaction occurred over two years after the notification and was influenced by subsequent developments – Held: Market value must be based on pre-notification or contemporaneous transactions, not post-notification sales [Paras 41-43, 44-47].

Comparable Awards – Escalation Applied – Reference Court relied on comparable Awards (Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.9) for determining market value – 10% annual escalation applied for 12 years from ₹50,000/- to ₹1,13,000/- for dry land and ₹1,33,000/- for ID land – High Court found this escalation reasonable and in line with precedents – Held: No merit in the Government Pleader’s contention against the 10% escalation [Paras 48-53].

Severance Charges – New Claim Not Entertained – Claimants sought severance charges at the appellate stage – Held: New claims beyond the pleadings cannot be introduced under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act – Cross objection on this point rejected [Para 54].

Decision – Appeals and Cross Objections dismissed – Compensation determined by the Reference Court upheld – Miscellaneous pending applications dismissed [Paras 55-56].

Partition Law – Fraudulent Suppression of Necessary Parties – Defendant filed a partition suit (O.S. No.213/2002) against only one co-owner, omitting other necessary co-owners – Courts below erroneously upheld the decree despite evidence of suppression and fraud – Held: Decree in O.S. No.213/2002 is null and void for fraudulently excluding necessary parties [Paras 15.3-15.4, 17].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope of Objections – Plaintiffs raised valid objections during execution proceedings, citing fraudulent omission from the partition suit – Courts erroneously dismissed objections on the ground that execution courts cannot go beyond the decree – Held: Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and the execution court should have examined the objections [Paras 15.3, 15.4].

Doctrine of Fraud – Nullity of Decree – Fraudulent omission of necessary parties, despite defendant's knowledge of their claims, constitutes a fraud on the court – Held: The decree obtained in O.S. No.213/2002 is a nullity and cannot bind the plaintiffs [Paras 15.4, 17].

Relief to Plaintiffs – Liberty to Defendant – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration that the decree in O.S. No.213/2002 is null and void – Defendant granted liberty to file a fresh partition suit, impleading all necessary parties [Paras 18(v)].

Decision:  Second appeals allowed – Judgments in O.S. No.367/2016, A.S. No.81/2020, A.S. No.83/2020, and related execution proceedings set aside – Decree in O.S. No.213/2002 declared null and void – Defendant permitted to file a fresh partition suit [Paras 18(i-v)].
 

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Burden of Proof – Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act – Relief Granted – The plaintiff must establish both readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) to perform obligations under the contract – In this case, evidence in the form of fixed deposits and legal notices proved the plaintiff's readiness and willingness – Held: Plaintiff demonstrated compliance with Section 16(c), justifying specific performance – Decision: Decree upheld with additional interest and costs. [Paras 15, 18, 23, 32].

Execution of Sale Agreement – Burden of Proof – Sections 101-103, Evidence Act – Sale Agreement Upheld – The burden to prove the sale agreement's validity was on the plaintiff, discharged through corroborative witness testimonies and documentary evidence – Defendant’s assertion of fabrication unsupported by evidence – Held: Execution of the sale agreement was valid – Decision: Decree upheld with modifications. [Paras 19-23, 38].

Judicial Admissions – Weight and Impact – Admission by Defendant – Statements in cross-examination regarding signing the agreement and receipt of money constituted judicial admissions, shifting the burden onto the defendant to refute – Held: Defendant’s failure to rebut admissions reinforced the validity of the agreement – Decision: Defendant’s claims rejected. [Paras 20-21, 33-37].

Discretion in Specific Performance – Section 20(2), Specific Relief Act – Discretion Exercised Judiciously – Grant of specific performance lies within judicial discretion and depends on equitable considerations – In the absence of hardship or unfair advantage, the trial court’s decree was affirmed – Held: Trial court exercised discretion correctly – Decision: Specific performance granted with equitable relief. [Paras 50-52].

Escalation in Property Prices – No Bar to Specific Performance – Grant of Additional Amount – Escalation in property prices during litigation does not bar specific performance but may justify equitable relief – Held: Additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded to the defendant, along with interest on the balance consideration – Decision: Decree modified to include interest and additional payment. [Paras 49, 61].
 

Bail - NDPS Act – Procedural Safeguards – Non-compliance Raises Doubts - The prosecution failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under Sections 42, 50, 52, and 52-A of the NDPS Act. Notably, there was a delay in recording the daily diary entry and preparing the inventory panchanama, as well as discrepancies in witness accounts, undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Paras 17-20, 28].

Bail on Parity – Co-accused Released - Co-accused No.2 (rider of the motorcycle) and Co-accused No.3 (alleged supplier) had been granted bail. The Court applied the principle of parity, observing similar circumstances. [Para 7].

Commercial Quantity – Reasonable Doubt in Prosecution Case - The prosecution alleged that the applicant was carrying 1300 grams of charas in a polythene bag while riding as a pillion passenger. The implausibility of this claim and the absence of corroborative evidence created a prima facie doubt in the case. [Paras 15-17, 27].

Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Violates Fundamental Rights - The applicant’s detention for 2 years, 11 months, and 5 days without trial commencement infringed upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration, even under the NDPS Act, must be weighed against Article 21. [Paras 22, 29].

Twin Conditions Under Section 37 NDPS Act – Satisfied - The Court observed that:

The public prosecutor was heard.

There were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty based on procedural lapses and lack of incriminating evidence. Further, there was no likelihood of the applicant committing any offense if released, given his clean antecedents. [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions - The applicant was granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including attendance at the trial court, restrictions on travel, and cooperation with the investigation. [Paras 32-33].

Civil Law - Export Credit – Interpretation of Maximum Tenure – Paragraph 1.1.2(ii) of the Master Circular – Partial Relief Granted - The Borrowers challenged the reversal of subvention on export credit due to delays in submitting export documents despite fulfilling export obligations within the stipulated period of 450 days. Held: Submission of export documents is a procedural requirement aimed at proving exports. A minor delay in submission does not disqualify the advances as "export credit" when the export obligation is fulfilled within the prescribed period. [Paras 43-47, 56].

Subvention Reversal – Validity of Banking Ombudsman’s Decision – Set Aside for First Lot; Upheld for Second Lot - For the First Lot of export transactions, where exports were effected within 450 days, the reversal of subvention was held to be unjustified. For the Second Lot, where exports did not materialize within 450 days, the reversal of subvention and reclassification of advances as domestic credit were upheld. [Paras 50-56, 62-63].

Beneficial Instruments – Purposive Interpretation of Master Circular – Relief Granted for Procedural Lapses - The Court emphasized that the Master Circular is a regulatory instrument promoting export competitiveness and must be interpreted in letter and spirit to fulfill its objective. Procedural delays in document submission should not undermine the substantive compliance of export obligations. [Paras 23, 47, 55].

Rule of Compliance – Strict vs. Substantial – Beneficial Instruments - Distinguishing between strict compliance (exports within 450 days) and substantial compliance (delayed submission of documents proving exports), the Court held that substantial compliance suffices to uphold the advances as "export credit." [Paras 43, 66-67].

Decision of the Court – The reversal of subvention for the First Lot was set aside, and the Borrowers were entitled to the benefits under the Subvention Scheme. However, the reversal for the Second Lot was upheld due to failure to effect exports within the stipulated period. Directions issued for recalibration of accounts and compliance by the Bank. [Paras 72(a)-(l)].
 

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – Detention Order Quashed – The detaining authority failed to establish a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged activities of the detenue – Subjective satisfaction was vitiated due to lack of material evidence and application of mind – Decision: Detention quashed, detenue released [Paras 13, 20, 24].

Grounds of Detention – Vagueness and Ambiguity – Constitutional Safeguards Violated – Held: Grounds of detention lacked specificity, rendering them vague and irrelevant – Non-disclosure of material relied upon by the authority violated the detenue’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution – Decision: Detention order set aside [Paras 19, 21-23].

Health Grounds – Preventive Detention and Medical Needs – Constitutional Safeguards Ignored – The detenue’s health condition, including a chronic medical ailment, was overlooked by the detaining authority – Failure to consider medical grounds amounted to a constitutional violation – Decision: Detention order quashed; detenue released [Paras 7, 23].

Role of Advisory Board – Duty to Conduct Independent Review – Held: The Advisory Board failed to provide an independent review of the detention order, reducing its role to a mere formality – Such actions violate constitutional protections – Decision: Detention quashed [Paras 18, 20].

Relevant Material – Non-Disclosure – Constitutional Violation – Non-supply of documents relied upon by the detaining authority invalidated the detenue’s opportunity for an effective representation – Held: Failure to supply essential material violated Article 22(5) – Decision: Detention quashed; immediate release ordered [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was quashed on grounds of non-application of mind, vagueness in allegations, and failure to adhere to constitutional safeguards. The Court ordered the immediate release of the detenue unless required in any other case.
 

Civil Law - Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act – Termination of Limited Rights Upon Remarriage – Misconceived Plea - The appellants claimed that the defendant, having remarried before 1956, ceased to hold limited rights in her deceased husband’s property under Section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856. Held: The plea was neither raised in the pleadings nor supported by evidence before the Trial Court. Such claims were first raised in appeal and are untenable. [Paras 15-18].

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14 – Applicability Post-Remarriage - Appellants contended that remarriage before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, precluded the defendant from becoming an absolute owner under Section 14. Held: The claim is not substantiated by pleadings or evidence. Additionally, no issue was framed to adjudicate this contention. [Paras 7, 15, 19].

Pleadings and Evidence – Scope of Appeal – Introduction of New Issues Barred - New claims regarding remarriage and its legal implications under the 1856 and 1956 Acts were raised only at the appellate stage. Held: Courts below rightly dismissed these as unsupported by pleadings or evidence. Appeals cannot be used to introduce fresh claims. [Paras 15, 18].

Ancestral Property and Adverse Possession – Claim Dismissed - The appellants’ assertions of ownership by adverse possession and application of agricultural customs were unsupported by evidence. Held: The claim of adverse possession or disqualification of the defendant under alleged customs was rightly rejected by the Courts below. [Paras 14, 19].

Decision of the Court – The appeal was dismissed, finding no misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or law by the Courts below. The judgment affirming the defendant's rights over the suit land was upheld. [Paras 19-21].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Joint Compromise Memo Filed – The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonor of a cheque for ₹20,00,000/-. During the pendency of the Criminal Revision, the parties amicably resolved the matter through a joint compromise memo, agreeing to settle the dispute for ₹19,00,000/-. The Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, permitted the compounding of the offence and annulled the conviction – Held: Offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, being primarily compensatory in nature, can be compounded even at the revisional stage to secure the ends of justice. Conviction annulled, and petitioner acquitted [Paras 6-10, 40-44].

Inherent Powers – High Court’s Jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC – The Court, invoking its inherent powers, compounded the offence to secure the ends of justice despite the appeal confirming conviction – Held: High Court has discretion to quash convictions under Section 138 of the NI Act when the dispute is amicably resolved, irrespective of procedural restrictions in Section 320 CrPC [Paras 22-25].

Section 147 of NI Act – Overriding Effect on Section 320 CrPC – Section 147 of the NI Act, which permits compounding of offences, overrides restrictions under Section 320 CrPC. Compounding at any stage is permissible for offences under the NI Act, provided it aligns with the objective of compensatory justice [Paras 30-33].

Damodar S. Prabhu Guidelines – Applicability at Revisional Stage – Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., compounding at the revisional stage is subject to appropriate costs to discourage undue delay. However, where compromise is bona fide, the Court may accept the settlement without imposing costs [Paras 10, 43].

Decision – Criminal Revision allowed based on the joint compromise memo – Conviction and sentence imposed by lower courts annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 43-46].
 

NDPS – Failure to Follow Procedural Safeguards – Acquittal Upheld – The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Court despite the recovery of 10,000 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon – State challenged the acquittal on the ground that prosecution evidence sufficiently proved possession and seizure – Held: Failure to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 52, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial – No independent witnesses were associated with the search and seizure, and there were contradictions in seizure memo, FIR timing, and forensic sampling – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10-12].

Search and Seizure – Violation of Section 52A NDPS Act – Sampling Not Done in Presence of Magistrate – The prosecution failed to produce seized drugs before a Magistrate for sampling and resealing, as required under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Samples were prepared and sealed by police personnel instead, without magistrate’s certification – Held: Procedural violations cast doubt on authenticity of seizure and sampling, leading to benefit of doubt for accused [Paras 13-16].

Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act – Failure to Establish Foundational Facts – No Reversal of Burden – The prosecution relied on presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 and 54 – Held: Presumptions apply only when foundational facts are established beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution case, failure to prove chain of custody, and missing procedural compliance negate applicability of these presumptions [Paras 20-22].

Unexplained Delay in Sending Samples to Forensic Lab – Genuineness of Seizure Questioned – The samples were sent to FSL after a significant delay, violating guidelines requiring dispatch within 72 hours – Held: Unexplained delay in forensic examination creates doubt regarding tampering and authenticity of seizure, benefiting the accused [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The Court held that prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, and procedural irregularities seriously undermined the case – Appeal dismissed – Concern expressed over casual and unscientific investigations in NDPS cases, urging stricter compliance with mandatory procedures [Paras 29-30].